Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Imperial
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint that was filed without the required filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and granted the plaintiff 45 days to pay the fee or file the required motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.“DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and Section 1915(a)” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), which mandates a filing fee for civil actions, and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which allows an exception only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the plaintiff neither paid the fee nor filed the required motion, the court lacked the authority to proceed with the case. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard procedural mechanism to allow the plaintiff to cure the defect. |
Granting of 45 days leave to pay the filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP.“GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed to: (a) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP” | agree with court Granting a specific period to cure a procedural deficiency is within the court's discretion and is consistent with local rules (S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b)) and the requirement for prisoner IFP motions to include a certified trust account statement (28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2)). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory requirements for filing fees and IFP status, cites appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent to support the legal framework, and provides a clear, time-bound opportunity for the plaintiff to cure the deficiency. The dismissal without prejudice is the correct procedural outcome when a plaintiff fails to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of paying the fee or obtaining IFP status.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00293-DMS-AGS CDCR #J-48500, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL Plaintiff, 13 ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE vs. FOR FAILING TO PAY 14 FILING FEE REQUIRED 15 BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED 16 IMPERIAL, IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 Defendant. PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 18 19 20 Plaintiff Steven Wayne Bonilla (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at San Quentin 21 State Prison, is proceeding pro se in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (See 22 ECF No. 1, Compl.) 23 I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) Status 24 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 25 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 $402. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 2 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 3 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 4 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, if the 5 Plaintiff is a prisoner, and even if he is granted leave to commence his suit IFP, he 6 remains obligated to pay the entire filing fee in “increments,” see Williams v. Paramo, 7 775 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2015), regardless of whether his case is ultimately 8 dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 9 (9th Cir. 2002). 10 To date, Plaintiff has not paid the initial filing fee or filed a Motion to Proceed IFP. 11 Therefore, his case cannot yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 12 1051. 13 II. Conclusion and Order 14 For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: 15 (1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failure to pay the 16 $402 civil filing and administrative fee or to submit a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and Section 1915(a); and 18 (2) GRANTS Plaintiff forty-five (45) days leave from the date this Order is 19 filed to: (a) prepay the entire $402 civil filing and administrative fee in full; or (b) 20 complete and file a Motion to Proceed IFP which includes a certified copy of his trust 21 account statement for the 6-month period preceding the filing of his Complaint. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3.2(b). 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall provide Plaintiff 24 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional 27 administrative fee of $52. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2020)). The additional $52 28 1 || with this Court’s approved form “Motion and Declaration in Support of Motion to 2 Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” If Plaintiff fails to either prepay the $402 civil filing fee or 3 ||complete and submit the enclosed Motion to Proceed IFP within 45 days, this action will 4 ||remain dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the fee 5 || requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1914(a) and without further Order of the Court. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: March 18, 2021 » Yim Yn. 8 Hon.DanaM.Sabraw 9 United States Chief District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 oe
Cites, in this corpus
- Lonnie Williams, Jr. v. Daniel Paramo 13-56004 · 2015-01-07